Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome Members to the final sitting of this Public Bill Committee, which appears, if I may say so from the Chair, to have run extremely smoothly so far. I congratulate all Members who have ensured that smoothness, not least the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is dealing with the Bill on his own. Whatever political party is in power, when a Minister sees through a Bill on his own, he should be commended, and I do so from the Chair in an entirely impartial way.
When we broke at 10.25 this morning for Question Time in the House, the hon. Member for Ashford, whose name has been mentioned a number of times on the Floor of the House in its deliberations, was speaking to new clause 2. I ask him to resume his feet and continue doing so.

New Clause 2

Establishment of UK Border Police Force
(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the UK Border Police Force.
(2) The UK Border Police Force shall have the functions of
(a) detecting and removing illegal overstayers;
(b) protecting UK borders;
(c) investigating suspected employers of illegal immigrants;
(d) preventing and detecting human trafficking; and
(e) such other functions as the Secretary of State may by order determine.
(3) Before making an order under subsection (2)(e), the Secretary of State shall
(a) publish proposals;
(b) consult members of the public and stakeholders; and
(c) lay a draft before each House of Parliament.
(4) Bodies to be consulted under subsection (3)(b) shall include
(a) the Metropolitan Police Commissioner;
(b) representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers;
(c) the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate;
(d) representatives of the Serious Organised Crime Agency;
(e) representatives of the Association of Police Authorities; and
(f) such other people as the Secretary of State may determine..(Damian Green.)

Brought up, read the First time, and motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Damian Green: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that the Committees smooth running is due largely to your impeccable chairmanship.

Nicholas Winterton: I hoped you would say that.

Damian Green: I hoped that you were hoping that I would say it, Sir Nicholas.
When I was interrupted by the suspension this morning, I was praying in aid senior police officers in favour of our proposal in new clause 2 for a border police force. I had just moved on to Sir Ian Blair, who is not often prayed in aid from these Benches but who was right on this issue. He said in February 2005 that when the country
got into the debate about SOCA, it surprised me that we did not have a national border police.
I suppose that I should emphasise for the purposes of Hansard that when I refer to SOCA, I am talking about the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Sir Ian Blair repeated that opinion:
I have always thought that having a national border police was a good idea...I am very supportive of this issue.
I have suggested a number of growing serious international crimes with which the border police would deal, and I want to return for a moment to the subject of human trafficking, because it is the fastest-growing international crime in the world. It is up there with transporting guns and drugs across frontiers, and I suspect, unfortunately, that it will continue to grow and become ever more serious. The UK is one of the biggest destination countriesI think that it is the biggest in Europe at the momentfor that crime. The Minister can correct me if he thinks that I am wrong, but whether we are or not, human trafficking is a serious problem for us. Not only are we a destination country, we are a transit country as well.
The latest estimate is that 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. The number of women in the UK who are victims of trafficking is, of course, difficult to estimate, but there are many thousands. The figures for off-street prostitution are stark, vivid and terrible. Whereas 10 years ago, 15 per cent. of such women were foreign, the number is now about 85 per cent., according to some of the surveys I have seen. The proportion of women involved in prostitution who come from abroad has been turned on its head. Inevitably, large numbers of those women were trafficked here deceitfully, having been promised lives as waitresses and so on and then exploited by criminal gangs. The other, particularly horrific part of the trade is the trafficking of children, which also appears to be growing. In an attempt to combat that particularly evil trade alone, it will be worth while having a specialist border police force.
I emphasise the point that a specialised police service is particularly effective in fighting new types of crime. The Committee will be aware that we set up a committee under Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to review our border security arrangements as a whole. His committee, which was full of other senior police officers and former Home Office officials, concluded that only a unified border force could protect our borders effectively. We are now building on the valuable and useful work of Lord Stevens and his committee to develop the detail of what we can do and when we can do it.
I share the Ministers concern that we should change our policing and other control systems gradually so that there is not too much disruption to existing activities. We know that it ought to be possible for a new force to be effective and that it ought to be able to protect our borders. We have discussed the one land border that this country has, and there is division across the Committee on how we should deal with it, given the common travel area, but there should be no division about whether all other UK borders can be defended. They ought to be defensible, but they are not defended well enough at the moment.
Experience in other areas of crime prevention shows that the type of specialisation we propose has been effective, so there is no reason why it could not be applied at the border. We also feel that the proposal has a tide running behind it. An early proponent was the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in a previous incarnation. In a report as far back as 2001, it recommended
a single frontier force on the basis of secondment and direct employment, but with clear lines of communication.
That was six years ago, and some steps toward better co-ordination of our enforcement activities at the border have been taken, but the Government have not taken the big, important step of not only involving the police but allowing them to set up a unified border force. I cannot remember how many times I have urged the Government do that when we have debated immigration Bills, but I do so strongly once again. We think that would be an important step forward in improving the safety of our borders and therefore the security of all those who live within our borders.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir Nicholas.

Simon Burns: Slurp, slurp.

Tom Brake: It was a genuine comment, Sir Nicholas.
I rise partly in support of the proposal and partly to seek further clarification of it. The Liberal Democrats support the idea of a UK border police force, and would like to see such a force, but the Conservatives proposal seems to be for an all-purpose border and immigration force that focuses very much on immigration rather than policing. We would like the focus to be clearly on immigration and the policing of immigration issues, but also on the wider issue of crime. That does not come across in the proposal.
We believe that there is a need to unite different border functions, and it is clear that major crime is not a particularly local issue. Indeed, it is often a national or international issue, and therefore crosses borders, so we support having police powers within a UK border force. Perhaps when the Conservatives respond to the Minister, they will have an opportunity to set out whether they see the proposal as principally about tackling immigration issues at borders or whether there would also be a component for tackling major crime that is not linked to immigration.
In the other place, our proposed amendment referred to
protecting UK borders...strengthening frontier protection against threats to the security, social and economic integrity and environment of the United Kingdom...preventing and detecting human trafficking; and...maintaining and improving a safe, ordered and secure environment in ports.
It is clear that more debate is needed, and perhaps this is one step towards what may be the Governments longer term ambition of including the police. If that is the Governments journey, I hope that they will speed up arrival at their destination.
It is probably sufficient to have expressed support in broad terms for the amendment, but to have queried the almost exclusive focus on immigration at the expense of other significant policing issues affecting our borders.

David Hamilton: I am raising this question again because when I raised it at our first sitting, you kindly told me, Sir Nicholas, that that was the wrong time to do so, so I am now raising it at the appropriate time.
We already have a UK force. It is called the British Transport police. It is not new, but it needs to be adapted. We must recognise that the world has changed. When I was a young man, my ambition, like many boys in my age group, was to have a holiday abroad. The way we live has changed fundamentally, and the vast majority of British people can now take holidayswhen I go into schools, every young kid tells me that they go on holiday abroad. The mass of people moving in and out of the country has changed the dynamics of how we operate.
What has not changed during that time is that we have not recognised that we must move the apparatus forward to ensure that all the agencies move as one. The agencies dealing with immigration, drugs, human trafficking, terrorism and so on are important. They have shown that they can adapt year on year, time after time, and their experience tells them when they must do so. The one agency that has never adapted is the uniformed police, and I make no apology for returning to that point.
I do not understand the nonsensical argument for having Lothian and Borders police in Edinburgh, Strathclyde police in Glasgow, Tayside police in Dundee, and Grampian police in Aberdeen. That is reflected throughout the UK. It makes no sense not to have a unified force with a single command structure that can adapt to changes over the years.
We are discussing devolving more power to Scotland, and that will follow in Wales and Northern Ireland, but increasing power should be a two-way stream. We should recognise that although Scots law is different from that in the rest of the UK, and that the police forces are different and come under different regimes, there is a sensible argument for some powers returning to Westminster. This is one. There is logic in having a structure that tells people clearly that if they arrive at any airport in the UK, the same system will operate. With the best will in the world, the co-operation between police forces and agencies lacks the necessary command structure.
I always say if one cannot say something in five minutes, it is not worth sayingalthough this place does not abide by thatso I shall not take up much time. My view, which is simple, not partisan, is that we must adapt to a world of changes, and we have not done that. We must get four Governments to sit down and agree that one Governmentthe UK Governmentshould deal with the matter. That makes sense, and the vast majority of people throughout the UK would understand that. We should have one force, one line of command and one Department, under one Parliament, not four.

Phil Woolas: Thank you for your kind words, Sir Nicholas. I welcome you back to the Chair. I had hoped to have an Under-Secretary to help me, but that is not to be.
Ministers often resist Opposition amendments on the grounds that they were not invented here, although they rarely admit that. I assure the Committee that that is not the basis for my argument on new clause 2. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, there is a long-standing debate behind the suggestion and it has been debated within the police force and elsewhere. Indeed, the Governments Green Paper consulted on a similar proposalalthough it was not exactly the same in its range. Let me reassure the Committee that my argument is not based on the fact that the proposal is not my new clause.
There is an argument for what is being proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has put the argument, as have some people in the police force. The matter was also debated in the other placealthough I do not think it was voted on. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord West of Spitheadknown in the Department as west of Spithead as opposed to east of Manchester as in my caseset out the significant steps that the Government have already taken towards the objective that my hon. Friend raised: making sure that we have the best command and control to deal with what we all accept is a significant issue in the United Kingdom.
In addition to ensuring that we have the powers to strengthen our border controls for the purposes of migration management and customs detection, which we have been debating in the Bill and in relation to other things, we should make sure that we have the right structures in place. It is important that there is integration at the ports and airports, and through the postal service. The postal service is often overlooked in public debates on this matter because it is not an immediately visible facility, but our postal detection facilities are very important in relation to customs powers.
Increasingly, there has recently been what I have described as the exportation of the borderthe juxtaposed controls at Calais, in Belgium and potentially elsewhere if dispersement happens. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington rightly picked me up on that. There has been integration of Customs and Revenue functions not only in relation to the border and immigration authority as was, but in relation to UK Visas. Traditionally, the staff whom the United Kingdom Government employ to check and issue visas came under the remit of the Foreign Office, but they now come under the UK Border Agency. Some 3,000 of our staff are employed overseas and that is a further exportation of the border.
I cannot argue against the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford on the basis that we do not want integrated structures; it is really a question of how best to achieve those objectives and how one draws the line. That is the basis of my argument. The provisions of part 1 provide a more robust legal framework for the UK Border Agency, so that it can build upon its successes. We are very proud of its successes and we think that we get an unfair hearing given the dangerous and difficult job that our people do.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some criticisms of our border controls. I understand why, but let me briefly paint a picture of why we think we are improving the situation. I suppose I could be accused of making partisan points, but these are the facts. It is true that we now deport more people than ever66,000 people were removed from the UK in 2008. I am sorry, but that figure is not more than ever as there were previous years when there were slightly more. However, in recent years there has been a significantly upward trend. Some 5,400 of those people were foreign national prisoners. A Home Secretary resigned over that issue and took responsibility for that. So it is incumbent on us to improve.
On illegal migrants, more than 1 million freight vehicles were searched last year, and as a result 28,000 attempts to enter the country illegally were stopped. I say attempts, not people, because some attempts involved the same people trying to get back in.
The hon. Member for Ashford is right to mention people trafficking. Our crime teams at major ports, working with the police authorities in the area and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, have successfully prosecuted more than 70 people who have been involved in organising smuggling and trafficking. A specialist team at Heathrow, the Paladin team, detected and helped 184 children last year who we believe were being trafficked.
On drugs and firearms smuggling, seizures of class A drugs reached record levels in 2008 and detection of illegal firearms doubled.
On organised crime directly, our approach has been to set up immigration crime partnerships across the UK. We have worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers on that. This is a difficult argument for me to get across, because it is a matter of where one draws the organisational boundary, but our strategy on a day-to-day basis is to work with local police officers. We have within our ranks more than 300 police officers who are seconded to the UK Border Agency local immigration teams, which work directly in the communities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that border control is not just about the physical border, but is about our towns, villages and countryside, as well as urban areas.

Tom Brake: I am not sure whether the Minister is about to quote this figure, but I am sure he is painfully aware that, between 1997 and 2006, only 37 employers were found guilty of employing illegal immigrants, although, as he is also probably aware, the Governments most recent estimate of illegal immigrant numbers, which dates back to 2001, shows there are 430,000 of them. However, only a rather small number of employers have been prosecuted.

Phil Woolas: My argument is not that everything that has happened since 1997 has been perfect. Indeed, I have been heavily criticised, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has done some of the criticisingquite reasonably, because he is doing his job and I do not blame him for thatfor criticising the past myself. The sponsorship arrangements that are now in place allow the sponsor to be held to account in a much better way than in the past. On the number of raids, although I will not go into detail, the fact is that we are able to carry out interventions in a much better way now. The critical point is that we are utterly dependent on our partnership working with the police forces to do raids on employers, for example.
The new structures that we have put in placethe Bill is intended to provide a statutory footing for the final pieces of the jigsaware delivering successes, although not perhaps as many as the public would like to see. Nevertheless, they are doing so.
On the effectiveness of the action that we take with regard to employers, under the fines that we have put in place we have now successfully, through the civil penalties regime, issued 1,800 fines worth a total of £18 million from February 2008 to the end of April this year. Those fines do not just deter or punish the transgressors; they deter others and, critically, they address the pull factor, which is a major difficulty faced by this country, alongside border control, which the people traffickers exploit. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
My argument is that the picture is not, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has tried to paint it, one of failure, but one of growing success. There is no disagreement in the Committee or the House on the need to strengthen our borders. The argument is that there should be a single unified agency for UK borders encompassing all immigration, revenue, customs and police functions. The amendment that was tabled and discussed in the other place and is replicated here would not bring that about.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington proposed an all-encompassing agency. I read his report, which is serious not just because of his experience and the fact that he is a serious member of the other place, but because it addresses the argument in the Green Paper. At the time of the report, the Border and Immigration Agency existed, but not the new UK Border Agency, which incorporates HM Revenue and Customs. The key point in Lord Stevenss report is that HMRC and the Border and Immigration Agency should be brought together with the agencies that he listed. My argument is that evolution of the agency has brought a large part of Lord Stevenss intentions together.
To repeat what my noble Friend said, we do not rule out the hon. Gentlemans proposition. It has merit, but we have some important arguments about the organisations remit and the organisational disruption that it could cause. Critically, we have arguments about how best to obtain the co-operation in practice of the existing 43 police authorities in England and Wales, the one in Northern Ireland and the eight in Scotland. How can we get them to work better with us? Our fear is that if we encompass all police functions in the agency, it may be more difficult in practice to obtain the assistance of local police forces.

David Hamilton: The forces have evolved to where they are, and some people will always oppose change, but the vast majority of people whom the new force would consist of are the very people who are there already, so it would not be difficult to transfer into one structure. I suggest that in the long term that must be the only way forward. Having one structure makes more sense than having around 49 forces.

Phil Woolas: I point to two factors. The first is the experience of the British Transport police. Many people, but not the Government, argue that the British Transport police should be integrated with local police forces, especially the Met.
On the second factor, my hon. Friend was quite right when he said that many of the schoolchildren he visits take foreign holidays. That is due to the success of the economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Disposable income and wealth in this country have increased as the economy has grown, and that has brought about greater overseas travel60 million of our citizens travel to France and Spain every year.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I hope that the Minister will connect what he is saying with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. He seems to have strayed a little.

Simon Burns: He has gone on a journey.

Phil Woolas: How do we police the increase in global movement? Some 285 million people travel in and out of the United Kingdom each year, and that number is growing.
Let me provide some examples of the practical co-operation between those police forces and the UK Border Agency in my hon. Friends area. In the aftermath of the Glasgow airport bombings, UKBA identified the suspects together with the Strathclyde and Metropolitan police, and provided the background information for the convictions that were secured. The serious question that we have to asknot just wearing our party political hats, but as Members of Parliamentis, would we be better equipped to secure such convictions with a single force, as opposed to less co-operation with the local police force, if that partnership was not embedded in?
Operation Warren, again with Strathclyde police, dismantled the largest sham-marriage scam in the United Kingdom107 marriagesthe main facilitator of which was convicted and imprisoned. The second part of Warren secured the arrest and conviction of another of the main organisers. On Operation Grange, which as my hon. Friend knows was to do with the Moira Jones murder, the assistance of UKBA was requested by Strathclyde police to help identify the suspect. The hon. Member for Ashford will say that that co-operation could exist, and of course it could, but my argument is about balance. There are other examples, but I will not detain the Committee with them.
I was talking about the Stevens report, which was undertaken at a time when some of the major functions were not already brought together as they are now. Indeed, on future recommendations, he said, in proposal 5:
Administering effective and efficient border security would require a range of partnerships with international bodies,
including the Identity and Passport Service as well. We have not gone that far. One can see that, from the viewpoint of UKBA, there would be some sense in a merger of the two. However, I am not sure whether that would make sense from the viewpoint of a focused delivery of the passport service. Again, I do not dismiss that idea; I take it seriously.
Proposal 2 in the report says that the border protection and security police force would need warranted powers to stop, search and arrest for all offences anywhere within the jurisdiction of the UK. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about Totnes. Again, I argue that by having a partnership with Devon police

Simon Burns: Devon and Cornwall.

Phil Woolas: Yes, it is one police authority; thank you. I do not believe that if we had a national, single police force, either within UKBA or parallel to it, its focus would mean, as proposal 2 suggests, that we would effectively be able to tackle the Totneses of this world.
The increasing success of the border controls for which I am attempting to build consensus will increasingly highlight visa overstayers and illegal immigrants. In future, the authorities will have much better, more straightforward and comprehensive intelligence on those overstayers that will help in enforcing that new policy and removing illegal immigrants. But the resources that we will require to enforce that policy, particularly from the point of view of deterrence and addressing the pull factor, will involve even more co-operation with the police authorities. That is an important point.
The Green Paper, From the neighbourhood to the national, consulted on what model of policing would best operate alongside UKBA at our borders. We received a range of responses. It is true that people in the police forces take different views. The hon. Member for Ashford has prayed in aid some of those views, but I pray in aid the official policy of ACPO. Its formal view remained in favour of a single border police force, rather than an all-encompassing agency, so as a half way between our two positions, there should be a force parallel to UKBA.

Damian Green: As both the Minister and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, the new clause does specifically what ACPO is talking about.

Phil Woolas: Except that the ACPO response acknowledged that its preferred model would require much further work, planning, and, critically, additional funding.
Kent policethe hon. Gentlemans forceforcibly rejects the idea of a national force, which is probably why ACPO does not go the whole hog. The Kent force has significant experienceprobably the most experience outside the Met and, possibly, Thames Valley as welland it does not wish to lose that power.
The Association of Police Authorities also strongly opposes the proposal for a national border force. It can see the drawbacks, particularly over the financing. Were we to provide for a new force in the legislation, we would require detailed work on the funding. Would it top slice local authorities council tax? How would it be paid for? These are serious matters.
To answer the hon. Member for Ashford, however, we must say what we are doing instead that is better than his proposal. The work that we do with ACPO to enhance the arrangements for our police borders is, therefore, of critical importance. We have a phased approach to that work. First, it focuses on counter-terrorism and special branch activity, developing border policing with the police counter-terrorism network of dedicated regional counter-terrorism units and counter-terrorism intelligence units, which themselves sit alongside special branch. In that regard, would we take just the special branch function into the UKBA, or would we leave it separate? Again, there would be a demarcation line. The next phase is to improve consistency of standards and better co-ordination of border policing, and then to build on our existing collaborative approach with other agencies.
The ACPO president was recently in correspondence with the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing about the shape of that programme of work. By its very nature, some of that activity is not visible to the public; much of special branchs work is, necessarily, not in the public eye. However, we in the Home Office, and the leadership of the police service, with whom we are engaged on the work, are clear that tangible improvements to public safety have resulted from it. The work is in the context of our Contest strategy.
The proposals refer to arrangements with the police. Central to our strategy is the idea ofindeed the existence ofimmigration crime partnerships. They are being put into place around the country and involve UKBA staff locally with local authorities. As I have said, the key to resisting illegal immigration is the pull factor. We believe local crime partnerships are the best way to deal with it; for instance, UKBA staff are embedded in police counter-trafficking teams at Heathrow. I have already mentioned Paladin; experienced detectives from the child abuse investigation command of the Metropolitan police are working with us. UKBA officers are embedded in the human trafficking centre in Sheffield, where their immigration experience and knowledge adds significant value. Since 2007, all border force staff have been required to complete a training package designed to help identify traffickers and their victims.
We believe that those local immigration crime partnerships are better at getting the necessary co-operation with police forces. There is another significant advantage of that approach, which I fear is lacking from the Lord Stevens approachit is a question of balance and judgment. That advantage is our ability to use immigration law in the wider fight against crime.
We all know that the people who organise crime in our country do not just organise one bit of crime. They do not just do illegal trafficking and let another gang do drugs and another gang do cash laundering, so breaking those criminal gangs has to be done with that in mind. To have a police force that concentrates just on immigration and customsin fact, a fairly wide remitdoes not address the point that to break those gangs a wider focus is needed on the gang than on the activity. I mentioned earlier the Eliot Ness strategythe gangster Al Capone was caught by a tax accountant, not by a police officer. In that respect, there is a parallel.
As my noble Friend said in the other place, there are compelling arguments for our proposal. There is the argument that I first used about the disruptive effect that it would have were it to take place immediately. I refer the Committee to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford when we discussed clause 3 on Tuesday morning. He was addressing the amendment about the designation of general customs officers. He made a consistent statement of conservative philosophy, with which I have some sympathy: If it aint bust dont fix it. He said:
While we are discussing the amendment, this would be an appropriate time for the Minister to give us an update on the progress of the merger of the organisations, because he will be more aware than I am that HMRC and UKBA are two very separate organisations with different cultures that he is trying to bring together. One hears of stresses and strains, which is not surprising and is entirely normal, but certainly those stresses and strains are there...Are those different groups of people, with their different training, backgrounds and organisational cultures, actually working together smoothly, or could that be best described as a work in progress?[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 20.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there were many practical issues. He was right, and just as he was right about the general transfer of duties, I am right about the fact that if we brought the police force into the UKBA at this stage of its evolution, we would cause chaos. I pray in aid the good old-fashioned principle of If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Nicholas Winterton: I now call Mr. Damian Green, perhaps to fix it.

Damian Green: I will address that point directly. It is indeed true that I believe, as all sensible people do, that If it aint broke, dont fix it, but the fact is its brokeour borders system is not working. It needs to be fixed, which is the purpose of our proposal. Until that point I was about to stand up and say that I was delighted that we were having such a serious debate.
This is a serious proposal, and as the Minister made clearvery honestlymany people who have looked at the matter feel that we need to move down a track towards better and greater integration of all the enforcement bodies that work at our borders and deal with immigration crime both at the borders and beyond. In some ways, the last part of his speech exaggerated the difference between us. All the rest of his speech had made it clear that we all believe that there should be greater integration. There are practical points about which parts are done when and how fast, which is what everyone dealing with these things seriously needs to address, but I do not think anyone doubts the final destination. As I listened to the Ministers speech, it struck me that whatever happens politically, I would be surprised if something like our proposal were not in place in five years time; it certainly will be if there is a Conservative Government after the next election. The thrust of the argument is that we are heading in that direction.
Let me deal with some of the points that were raised, many of which are very good. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that while the amendment was particularly focused on immigration, other things at the border are important. I completely agree with that. I said in my initial remarks that it was not just about stopping illegal immigration, although that is clearly hugely important and is one of the parts of the system that is broken at the moment; it is about human trafficking, drugs, guns and other crimes that are increasingly international. I entirely take his point on that.
The hon. Member for Midlothian made a powerful, passionate speech about the inadequacies of the current arrangement. He made the point that in the form of the transport police we already have a national specialist police force. It may be of interest to him to know that one of the people sitting on the Stevens committee was the newly knighted Sir Ian Johnston, who brought to the committee his experience as the long-time chief constable of the transport police. He was included on the committee precisely because he has run a relatively small, specialist, national force. He believes, as a member of the committee who signed that report, that that is the best way we could operate a border police force. Others have spotted that very important read-across. Since then, this Government have introduced SOCA. I know that it is not a police force but an agency, but it is another attempt, if you like, to nationalise as opposed to regionalise a part of specialist policing operations. The tide of history is flowing in that direction.
I do not wish to enter the debate about what should happen to regional police forces, as neither the shadow Home Secretary nor the shadow Minister for Police Reform would thank me for treading outside my territory. There appears to be a widespread consensus that, in terms of these specialist parts of policing, national activities are preferable. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will not rule it out and that he found the arguments compelling. He had a number of objections and his point about how we get co-operation in practice is a real one. Inevitably, if we are to discourage illegal employers or human traffickers, we will have to do it all over the country; we would have to know that we can operate anywhere. Therefore, in practical terms, we may well have to rely at times on local forces to do that.
The Ministers argument was that it is working wonderfully well now. [Interruption.] That is unfair; that was a slight parody of what he said. He said that it is working better nowit may be, but it started from a low base. As he knows, it does not work brilliantly now and there are many areas of the country where individual local police have been quoted as saying that they would like to do more in areas such as human trafficking but they have no drivers to do so. They are not funded to do so and they do not score any points on their Home Office public service agreements by doing so. It is almost as if they are discouraged from doing things in an area that would be of central interest to a border police force.
The Minister says that it will be easier to get local police forces to co-operate with UKBA than it would be with a border police force. I disagree with him about that. It seems overwhelmingly likely that if two parts of the police family talk to each other and, if necessaryif they are making large strategic decisionschief constable talks to chief constable, there would be more co-operation than there is now. We have never tried that, so neither of us can be definitive about it, but that may lead to a better system.
The Ministers second argument was that we have so much more intelligence now that we will reach the stage where we know where the vast majority of overstayers are; that would generate a requirement for more enforcement activity. If that is the worst problem that we have to face in three or four years time, we have made a tremendous step forward. By that I mean actually knowing where thousands of illegal immigrants are. I am not sure whether I share the Ministers optimism about the beneficial effects of technology. I hope that he is right, and if he is right, we have to organise the enforcement activity, which brings us back to the previous argument about how best to get the national border force and the regional police forces working together. As I say, we differ on that matter.
The Minister makes the point that organisations such as the Kent police and the Association of Police Authorities do not like the idea. I have spoken at length to the Kent police about the matter. I am an MP for Kent and I know the force well. It does its job effectively and has developed expertise in this matter. From a national perspective, it is important that we do not lose that expertise, and if possible we should spread the practice to other forces as well. Again, it seems that there is a prima facie case for arguing that if the people who are doing a good job in Kent are part of a force that is working all around the border, then we will improve performance in other areas.
The Minister makes the point about cost, which is obviously a serious point. How we deploy the money spent on the police in the most effective way at a time when economic failure has made the public finances a train wreck is obviously a problem that faces existing Ministers and will face future ones as well.

Tom Brake: We costed at around £100 million our proposals for a UK border force. Does the hon. Gentleman have a figure for what he believes his proposals would cost?

Damian Green: I do not, and not because I am just not giving a figure but because it depends on what we do, when we do it, the speed of integration and what duplications there may be within the existing structure. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not have an exact figure to give him now, but one will come. The detailed argument that we are having about when we integrate and at what stage we do it has a significant impact on the costs.
The Ministers final point was about some of the beneficial things that have happened, all of which boil down to embedding immigration expertise inside the police. The various specific local and regional examples that he gave were about why policing has become more effective, and it is precisely because there are now people who are full-time experts on immigration crime inside the police. I agree with that; it is a very important step forward and precisely why we are trying to make it permanent with a border police force. As we all agree that immigration-related crime and cross-border crime is big and will be an increasing problem, it seems to me that making that kind of beneficial sharing of expertise permanent and nationwide is precisely why we argued for a border police force and why we have tabled the new clause, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

Amendment of the immigration rules relating to Gurkhas
(1) The Immigration Rules, as laid before Parliament under section (3)(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77), are amended as follows
(2) In Rule 276F (requirements for indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as a Gurkha discharged from the British Army) omit paragraphs (ii) and (iii).
(3) In Rule 276I (requirements for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Gurkha discharged from the British Army) omit paragraphs (ii) and (iii).(Tom Brake.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is fair to say that, over the past couple of months, the issue of the Gurkhas has received a significant and appropriate airing, both in this place and elsewhere. It is therefore not my intentionand I am sure that you would not allow it, Sir Nicholasto go back over what has happened in recent years. Members are very familiar with the issue and will know that, in 2004, the Government changed the rules to allow Gurkhas who had served for four years or more to remain in the UK. However, those changes applied only to Gurkhas discharged from the British Army on or after 1 July 1997.
I think that all Members would agree that the treatment of the Gurkhas has not been the finest hour of this orpossiblypast Governments. However, it has afforded us a most memorable piece of cult viewing that, I am sure, is still circulating widely on YouTube. I suspect that, to this day, the Minister wakes up in a cold sweat every night worried about whether Joanna Lumley is going to doorstep him that morning. I even considered threatening him with Joanna Lumley over the Chagos island issue earlier in the debate. I hope he has recovered from his experience, although those who watched the ambush observed how effective it was. All future Ministers need to study what happened, perhaps to avoid similar things happening to them.
I shall not continue along that line of argument, because I am sure that you would cut me short, Sir Nicholas. However, Members might be interested to know that today the 2nd Battalion of Gurkhas were given the freedom of the town of Folkestone; so nationally there is recognition of the very important role that they have playedsome 200,000 soldiers, two world wars and so on. We know that the Government have finally responded to the issue, and I understand that the latest Government position is that guidance will be issued to ensure that the Gurkhas are treated fairly.
One of my members of staff has had discussions with the Home Office on that point, however, and I have just come from an event at which a senior civil servant pointed out that guidance can very easily be disregarded. It can very easily be substituted with later guidance. So new clause 5 would enshrine in law what I believe Members of all parties want the Government to do. It would not afford any wriggle room. It would take the action that many Members believe needs to be taken and allow us to take it without further delay. I hope that the Minister will consider it to be a very straightforward and helpful way of ensuring that this issue, which has proved painful for him in particular, is finally put to bed and resolved.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us a quick run round the Gurkha course again. Enough has been said on the subject of Joanna Lumley and on ambushes, but I must say that one of the Ministers unique places in history, for which he will be immortalised, is as the only middle-aged man in history who looked that uncomfortable that close to Joanna Lumley. [Laughter.] As has been said, it cannot have been his most enjoyable week.
The serious question that I put to the Minister is, what is now happening? It would be useful to know. We had the Sturm und Drang of the parliamentary defeat and the Government U-turn, but there has been a deafening silence ever since, so this is the ideal time for him to at least give the Committee a timetable for putting into effect what the then Home Secretary told the House and explain what the new system will be and how it will work. I appreciate that there are many details to work out, but the Government have had several weeks in which to do that.
It goes without saying that we all admire and respect what the Gurkhas have been doing and still do for this country. We believe that they have done great service that deserves not only our respect, but the reward of being allowed to settle in this country. It would be better, not least for the Ministers comfort, if there was no sense that the eventual solution was being delayed, because otherwise he will have the Gurkha campaigners on his back again. My friendly advice is that I do not think that that would be a happy or healthy position for him to be in.

Phil Woolas: To the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for tabling the new clause, I say: thanks. I do not know about middle-aged men being uncomfortable, but sometimes in ministerial life it is the worst of two evils to put oneself in that situation, but that is one for the memoirs.
My understanding is that the new clause, tabled by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Rochdale, is intended to remove two requirements from the rules relating to indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain for former Gurkhas. Those two requirements are: the requirement to be discharged from the British Army in Nepal on completion of engagement on or after 1 July 1997, and the requirement to have been discharged from the British Army not more than two years prior to the date on which the application is made. That would mean that Gurkhas discharged prior to July 1997 could qualify for indefinite leave to enter or remain under the immigration rules.
In response to the new clauses first provision, I can say that the revised policy announced by the Home Secretary on 21 May 2009 had the same effect in that regard as the new clause, so that provision is already there. The new clauses second provision would have the effect of removing the time limit for applications for indefinite leave for all former Gurkhas, not just those discharged prior to 1 July 1997. I will explain why we wish, on that specific point, to resist the new clause. The policy announced on 21 May, following consideration, meets the concerns of Parliament on the issue. That led subsequently to new draft guidelines, based on the seminar of the Home Affairs Committee, to which we were very grateful.
The Select Committee fulfilled its role superbly in helping Parliament and advising Government. I was glad that we were able to use that conduit, given that Parliament was suffering severe public criticism. Although I disagreed with the decision of the House, I said that evening that I respected its decision, and I put my shoulder to the wheel to deliver what Parliament had insisted upon. The Select Committee was beneficial in helping with that. The subsequent process was to publish new draft guidelines to meet the requests of the pre-1997 Gurkhas; they were shared with the Select Committee and the Gurkhas representatives, including Miss Lumley. Agreement and an understanding were reached.
The criteria for the pre-1997 people were therefore that soldiers must have served for at least four years, but there is no time limit on their applicationa critical difference from what people expected. There is not a two-year window, and there are a number of reasons for that. One was a recognition of the practicalitiesof how we could inform people in Nepal of their rights. Another was that we did not want to create a rush that we could not handle administratively, which would cause difficulties with housing and so on. For the pre-1997 people there is no cut-off point.
The difficulty with the second implication of new clause 5 for post-1997 Gurkhas is the critical principle called for by their representativesindeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House argued for itthat they should have parity with other Commonwealth servicemen and women in our armed forces. That would require a two-year cut-off point, after four years of service. In other words, it would give the post-1997 Gurkhas something better than was given to the Commonwealth soldiers. That is not what is being pushed for by the representatives, and no Government would be able to adhere to it because, in effect, it would open up a retrospective right for Commonwealth soldiers. That would be unmanageable, and not required.
I hope that I have answered the hon. Member for Ashford. The new guidance is out, and a statement has been made to the House. I will be bringing my life-size cut-out of Miss Lumley to future meetings, as my recognition rating in my constituency is significantly higher than it was before that episode. I have never been the victimif victim is the right wordof such jealousy. More seriously, I hope that I have met the point being made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Tom Brake: The Minister says that the new clause is imperfect, in that it will have unintended consequences in relation to parity with soldiers from the Commonwealth. However, it would have been within the Ministers remit to address the issue himself. If there were imperfections in the new clause, he could have dealt with them. He did not deal with the question of guidance being exactly that. I understand that civil servants can disregard guidance. I presume that it can relatively easily be modifiedchanged, deleted, added to and so on. We have an opportunity in the Bill to address the issue in a more permanent way than that which is currently offered by the guidance. The Government should have taken that opportunity, and I therefore intend to stick with my new clause and not withdraw the motion that it be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

Probationary citizenship leave: homelessness assistance
(1) The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (6) of section 118 (housing authority accommodation) insert
(6A) For the purposes of this section a person subject to immigration control does not include a person who has probationary citizenship leave..
(3) After subsection (4) of section 119 (homelessness: Scotland and Northern Ireland) insert
(5) For the purposes of this section a person subject to immigration control does not include a person who has probationary citizenship leave...(Tom Brake.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 9Qualifying period to provide education and health protection
(1) A person under the qualifying period shall be treated as a person settled in the United Kingdom for the purposes of all regulations made under
(a) the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46);
(b) the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (c. 40);
(c) the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986/594 (N.I. 3));
(d) the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989/306);
(e) the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30);
(f) the Education (Student Support) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998;
(g) the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21);
(h) the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8); and
(i) the Higher Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005/1116 (N.I. 5)).
(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (exclusion from benefits), in subsection (9) after EEA state, insert or a person with probationary citizenship leave..

Tom Brake: With these two new clausesthe last, I think, to be debated todaywe return to the issue of probationary citizenship, which is a matter that we discussed in one of last weeks sittings. I will deal with the new clauses together because they both relate to what constitutes probationary citizenship. The Governments view is very much that probationary citizenship is not about citizenship, but that it is a stage at which citizenship has not been reached. The new clauses state that probationary citizenship is citizenship that has been achieved but is under probationif people understand the semantic difference. The new clauses, therefore, are looking at ensuring that assistance is available through local authorities to deal with homelessnessthe subject of new clause 8and looking at what assistance is available and what fees should apply when seeking to access services such as education and healthnew clause 9.
As the Minister is aware, under the current proposals a holder of probationary citizenship would be ineligible for 15 different benefits that are available to those with indefinite leave to remain, and overseas rates would apply for further and higher education. That means that people whom we are hoping will soon become citizens of the United Kingdom and whose circumstances will often be difficult will find it hard to afford further and higher education, in particular, and may find themselves unable financially, for example, to access the national health service. It is an issue of principle about what probationary citizenship is, how we should view people who are going through that phase and how they should be treated in comparison with what applied previously in relation to indefinite leave to remain. I hope that the Minister will consider the new clauses carefully.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is asking a perfectly valid question. Presumably, the new clauses would, among other things, entitle a group of people to benefits earlier than they would be entitled under the Governments proposals. I shall ask him the question that he asked me a few minutes ago: what costings will be involved and what will be their effect?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have to be honest and state that I do not have the precise figures. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will set out the projections for such a change. The new clauses still enable us to debate the principle of probationary citizenship and peoples perception of what a probationary citizen should be, matters to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will also respond.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clauses because they allow us to explore an area that we did not deal with specifically in our earlier debates. The fundamental tenet of the proposals for the path to citizenship idea is that the rights and benefits of citizens are reserved for those who have earned the right to themthe route that we have discussed before. The Government recognise the significant contribution to this country both economically and socially that migrants can make. Nevertheless, it has been a long-standing policy that those entering the United Kingdom on the work or family route are expected to support themselves without access to benefits. There are, of course, some caveats to that, particularly in respect of the primary care and accident and emergency areas of public health, where it is clearly in everyones interests that that should be the case.
All Members will know the phrase, recourse to public funds. It was dealt with in part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and has existed for many years. People on temporary leave to remain under those routes do not have access to benefit. That view is supported widely and we believe that that policy should be clarified in respect of the probationary citizen proposals, so that everyone is clear that those benefits derive from citizenship but not from probationary citizenship.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that such a provision does not apply to migrants on the protection route. They are dealt with separately. It is right, given the special circumstances that led people on that route to the United Kingdom, for them to get access to benefits if asylum is granted. I am not talking about cases in which asylum has not been granted; there are different arrangements there.
The restrictions on access to benefits and services at the probationary citizen stage will apply to migrants on the work routehighly skilled and skilled workers under tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system. Secondly, the restrictions will apply to those on the family routethat is, family members of British citizens and, slightly different, under the current category of permanent residents. Further, those people on the family and work routes will have full access to national insurance contribution-based benefits on the same basis as others. Those benefits are contribution-based jobseekers allowance, contribution-based incapacity benefit, contributory employment and support allowance, retirement pension, maternity allowance and bereavement benefit. If someone has been paying tax and national insurancethey have made a contributionthey are of course entitled to get their money back, to put it in colloquial terms. That will apply with probationary citizenship. What is not applied under our proposals are the non-contributory benefits, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is probing and pushing on. We do not believe that to be anti-foreigner in any way. We are putting forward to the probationary citizen arrangements whereby, if people want to become citizens and build a life in our country, they will need to demonstrate through the criteria discussed what is available to them. That does not include the non-contributory benefits.
The proposed new clause gives probationary citizens access to social housing and homelessness assistance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am not point-scoring, but it does not do that for England and Wales. I do not know whether that was deliberate, but if it was, I thought it was extremely clever, because it made it more difficult for me, given the position of the Scottish Executive.
The situation at the moment is that, once granted indefinite leave to remain, a migrant gets full access to benefits, subject to the same eligibility criteria as everyone else, apart from the right to vote, if one includes that as a benefit. Currently, an economic migrant will normally be entitled to apply for ILR after five years in the UK, and a spouse after two years. The benefits available once a migrant is granted ILR include income support, employment and support allowance, housing benefit, carers allowance, disability living allowance and access to local authority housing.
Under the earned citizenship proposals, by way of contrast, the economic migrant will access mainstream benefits and social housing, if they are successful, six years after arrival. It may help the Committee if I refer, for the record, to the latest impact assessment, of June 2009, which gives some statistics estimating the range of potential transfers to be in the order of £860 million to £2.1 billion over a 10-year period. I caution against comparison with the earlier figure of £350 million, which if my memory serves me was over a five-year period. The difference reflects that, as time passes, the policy kicks in for more people. The assumptions in the impact assessment are in annexe A, I believe at paragraph 42.
The legislation has got things right, based on the long-standing principle of access to public funds. If such a clause to meet that objective were in placeI may be being unfair, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is asking a question as much as making a proposalthe cost would run into significant billions of pounds. Having said that, as everyone who deals with such matters knows, access to benefits is a complex area because one also has to look at the situation of the spouse. The no recourse to public funds test applies to the spouse who may get, or may argue for, access consequential to the arrival of the spouse. That is an important point, which makes the area extremely complex.
Say a wife with children comes from America to live with her spouse in this country and that entitles the family to access to benefits that the father would not get on his own, and so on. There are also examples in reverse. Under our earned citizenship proposals, there are no such complications that I am aware ofI say with my hand on my heart. I hope that the principle behind this is accepted. I believe that it achieved consensus in the other place. I do not think that there was a division on that point.

Damian Green: I sense that the Minister is drawing to a close. One thing that has yet again sprung out of this debate is how unfortunate the phrase probationary citizenship is. Because of the history of the usage of the word in this country, probation sounds like something given when an offence has been committed. I am sure that before all this eventually passes, it cannot be beyond the wit of Ministers and their officials to come up with a better phrase, such as qualifying citizenship. In the scheme of things, that is a relatively trivial point, but the current wording sends out the wrong message, so I hope that the Minister can find another word.

Phil Woolas: I have known the hon. Gentleman for 20 yearswe have worked together in different capacitiesand he is consistent in his liberalism on this matter. I understand the point that he makes. I have checked the definition of probation, and as he says, it is normally used in the context of someone who is on probation. In Oldham, that means that if someone misbehaves they go back into the clink. Its proper meaning is not punitive although we have not come up with a better term. The word makes the point that someone is aspiring to citizenship, rather like an apprentice in a workplace who is aspiring to be a skilled worker. In my experience, the apprentice is proud of that title because it implies a self-esteem that is leading to a status and it should be seen in that context. I advise the Committee to look at the words literal translation into Urdu, where it does not have the context that the hon. Gentleman asks about. I did check that, although not for any reasons of self-interest, God forbid.
The impact assessment makes its assumptions on numbers that are our best guesstimates based on previous experience of applications for probationary citizenship. I would not want the migration group to take those figures and say that they are our projections of what will actually happen in terms of numbers because it will draw wrong conclusions and probably project the population of the country to be 120 million within five years. I slightly jest, but we can base our impact assessment only on our knowledge so far.
I will not read out the benefits that are affected in the list in front of me because it runs to two pages. However, I hope that I have made the point that it is fair that contributory benefits should be available, but non-contributory benefits should not.

Tom Brake: May I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford on whether qualified or, possibly transitional is a better word than probationary? That is the point I was making about the belief that people have in the person who is seeking to become a citizen. I agree that describing that phase as probationary citizenship is regrettable, because it casts doubt on that applicants probity. I hope that the Minister can find a different phraseology.
I listened carefully to the Minister. Clearly, it was not the intention that the proposed new clause should apply only to Scotland and Northern Ireland. For that reason alone, I will not press the matter to a Division. He has done a good job of explaining some of the issues relating to the proposed new clauses, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: I now ask the Minister to move the motion that certain written evidence already reported to the House

Damian Green: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I do not believe that we divided on new clause 10.

Nicholas Winterton: It has already been debated and I was not aware that the Opposition wished to press it to a Division. If that is the case, I am perfectly happy that they have their wish.

New Clause 10

Restriction on studies: further definition
(1) The Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended by inserting College in column (1) of the Schedule.
(2) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes the word college by a person
(a) to whom the business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) who carries on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and immediately before that transfer,
during the twelve months beginning with the date of the transfer.
(3) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes a word college by a person who
(a) carried on that business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) continues to carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its lawful name..(Damian Green.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: So that the Committee is fully aware, let me say that new clause 10 was debated with amendment 57. I say to Her Majestys Opposition that it would have been appropriate for them to have advised me that they wished to press it to a Division.
Mr. Burnsrose

Nicholas Winterton: Are you going to question the Chairman?

Simon Burns: No. I was going to give an explanation and an apology.

Nicholas Winterton: Let me conclude what I was saying. It would have been appropriate for us to have been advised that a Division was requested on new clause 10.

Simon Burns: I give you my abject apologies, Sir Nicholas. I had just assumed that when we came in the proceedings to new clause 10, it would be automatically disposed of, like similar amendments, even though we had debated it. If that is wrong, it is my fault.

Nicholas Winterton: The Opposition Whip has been duly courteous. I think we can say that there has been a misunderstanding. I fully accept the explanation and as a result, we have dealt with things in entirely the correct way. This has been an excellent Committee, so we do not want in any way to criticise what has happened, but the requirement of a Division has been honoured.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.(Mr. Woolas.)

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Phil Woolas: I rise briefly, although we have much time left. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is an experienced Whip and I thank him and his counterparts for the organisation of these proceedings. We have not had internal knives and we have not felt under undue pressure. Ministers are often required to read regulations and policies into Hansard, and in this area of law in particular, there are many thousands of people outside the House in the immigration world who read every word very carefully, so I apologise to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members if they are fed up with listening to my Lancashire tones, but that is required sometimes. I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford for organising matters.
I also thank other members of the Committee. I try to build consensus for a Bill by working on its principles in formal and informal circles, but I also try to answer as comprehensively as possible the questions that hon. Members put from both sides of the Committee. This is a very complex area of law. The hon. Member for Ashford teased me about the number of Bills, and a draft simplification Bill is coming forward. The first part of the Bill has largely an organisational impact. The second part of the Bill will have profoundly beneficial long-term impacts on this country. That is why trying to secure consensus on it has been particularly important.
I thank the Clerks, who as ever have acted with superb professionalism. I thank the Bill team from the Home Office and across Whitehall who have worked on it for many months. I have been, in one capacity or another, responsible for 17 Bills in the House and I can say that the team who have been helping me and the Opposition in briefings are superb. I am very proud of them and grateful to them. We did, of course, get a run through the mill in the other place and I can tell you, Sir Nicholas, that West of Spithead is not somebody who abandons ship lightly, nor does he give in to an argument easily, so we have benefited. I did not want this Bill to start in the House of Lords, but it did, and I confess now that it is a better Bill for that.
Finally, I thank you, Sir Nicholas, for your chairmanship, with Miss Begg, and Mr. Gale at one sitting. I think that you know the esteem in which I hold you as a Chair and, indeed, as a constituency MP. I can tell the Committee that I often disembark from the train at Macclesfield to get my hair cut. There is a photograph of you cutting the ribbon in the hairdressers from some years ago. If I could get that sort of recognition in my constituency, perhaps I would have your majority. [Interruption.] The haircut we will be silent on. Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for your chairmanship and your wisdom and guidance, as ever.

Damian Green: May I also extend my thanks to you, Sir Nicholas? As the Minister ended with the Chairman, I shall start with the Chairman, and with the small piece of advice for the Minister that if he wants to have his picture in hairdressers in his constituency, perhaps he should get his hair cut in his own constituency and not yours, Sir Nicholas; but that is just a tip.
You have served the Committee very well, Sir Nicholas, and I thank both you and Miss Begg for your firmness and courtesy. I thank Mr. Gale for the short, whirlwind sitting when he proceeded at such a pace that he was moving on even before the Government Whip had got to his feet to move the Adjournment. We would have been there for many hours had Mr. Gale had his way, but we would have finished the Bill several sittings earlier. I thank also the Clerks for their help, especially at the start of the Committee. It has gone smoothly and I am grateful for that.
I agree with the Minister that the Bill is better for having started in the Lords. Their lordships debates were of an extremely high calibre and illustrated the pinch points of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for effectively conceding one of our amendments and for promising that the Government will implement that in relation to the provision of statistics. I am also grateful to him for promising to take away and look at what is still the most contentious part of the Bill. No doubt we will have further and better debates on that in the Bills later stages. I am glad that the Committee has proceeded so smoothly, Sir Nicholas.

Tom Brake: I echo the thanks given to those who have participated in making the Committee a smooth-running and satisfactory affair. In the past, I have dreaded the Committee stages of Bills because of their complexity, but this one has been very well managed. I thank you, Sir Nicholas, for chairing this sitting and others so effectively, and I thank Miss Begg and Mr. Gale for their roles.
I thank the Minister in particular, as he has been very straightforward and courteous. He has done a very effective job of explaining complicated issues in a way that has been extremely helpful and that will be well documented in Hansard. He has also made some helpful comments about discretion and how it can be applied in appropriate circumstances. Clearly, some issues still require further investigation, such as how active participation and volunteering are going to work, as there are still some difficulties there. Apart from that, this has been a productive and positive experience, which I look forward to repeating at some point.

Nicholas Winterton: Perhaps I should have the last word from the Chair. I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister and his colleague, and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, on the constructive and positive way in which they have dealt with this important Bill. It has gone through very smoothly because of the co-operation between both sides of the Committee. I sometimes think that such co-operation shows Parliament at its bestdoing the job that it is here to do.
I thank the Clerk for the guidance and advice that she has needed to give to me from time to time. I thank the police, the doorkeepers and, of course, the very important Hansard writers, because it is always helpful to have everything that we have said recorded truly and properly for prosperity.
I listened to the debate on the Gurkhas with some interest, and I am happy to tell the Minister and the Committee that the regiment with which I had the honour to serve, the 14th/20th Kings Hussars, now the Kings Royal Hussars, had the great honour of being able to wear the Gurkhas cross kukris on our uniform jacket because of the battles we had fought with the Gurkhas in past campaigns.
I thank the Committee for dealing with the Bill in such a constructive way, and I shall pass on to my co-Chairmen, Miss Anne Begg and Roger Gale, the thanks and appreciation that have been expressed to us all. We were happy to do it, and the Committee has been a good one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose.